‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy ‘True Christians™’ are like the elusive Bigfoot; everyone has heard of them but nobody has actually ever seen one. In religious debates about atrocities committed by Christians (the Crusades, the Inquisition, Witch Hunts, Oliver Cromwell, Hitler and the Nazis, et al) the standard answer is, “Oh those weren’t True Christians™.” Apparently there is no general consensus on what a ‘True Christian’ is. I guess that’s why, according the Worldwide Council of Churches, there are nearly 41,000 Christian denominations. ‘True Christians’ are always saying that True Christians can’t be for (or against) capital punishment, True Christians can’t be for (or against) socialism, True Christians can’t be for (or against) drug legalization, etc. The reason true Christians are so hard to find is because there is no real definition to what a True Christian is. Whenever atrocious behavior is committed by a Christian, the definition of ‘Christian’ is changed to deny the atrocity. This strategy is called the No True Scotsman Fallacy. The ‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy is a special type of ‘Moving the Goalposts.’ The name “No True Scotsman” comes from an analogy involving a Scotsman: Angus says, “No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge!” Then I counter by saying, “I have a friend named Duncan who puts sugar on his porridge!” Angus counters with, “Then Duncan is no true Scotsman, because true Scotsmen don’t put sugar on their porridge!” Angus here has moved the goalposts by redefining ‘Scotsman’ to only include characteristics to his liking. The fact that Duncan was born in Scotland has nothing to do with Angus’ particular definition, because Angus believes that he and he alone gets to say what a ‘true Scotsman’ is. Here’s an example of how the No True Scotsman Fallacy might be used by a Christian: Theist: “Adolf Hitler couldn’t have been a Christian! No Christian would do the things he did!” Atheist: “Actually, Hitler was a Roman Catholic, and believed he was doing God’s work.’ Theist: “Hitler might have claimed to be Catholic, but Hitler wasn’t a true Christian! No true Christian would commit genocide!” The standard form of the No True Scotsman argument, when used regarding ‘True Christians’ is: “Our religion teaches people to be kind and peaceful and loving. Anyone who does evil acts certainly isn’t acting in a loving manner, therefore they can’t really be a true member of our religion, no matter what they say.” The problem here is that by using the definition that a ‘True Christian’ acts in a kind, peaceful and loving manner and never commits any evil acts, is that unless a Christian acts in a kind, peaceful and loving manner 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, then that person isn’t a ‘true Christian’ by that definition. The standard reply to this argument, that “Christians aren’t perfect, we’re just forgiven,” is that it excuses all manner of non-peaceful, unkind, hateful and evil behaviors, including Hitler’s attempt at genocide. So if you excuse evil acts committed by Christians by claiming, “Christians aren’t perfect, we’re just forgiven,” then you have no moral or ethical basis for not excusing Hitler as ‘not perfect, just forgiven.’ So the next time someone tries to use the No True Scotsman Fallacy by claiming that this or that person wasn’t a ‘True Christian™,’ ask them to tell you what a true Christian is, and to define it in such a way that the person they’re accusing of not being a true Christian can be logically excluded from the ranks of true Christendom without excluding all other ‘True Christians.’ I’m willing to bet they won’t be able to do it. This is the reason the illusive “True Christian” can never be found. The definition is always changing. tinyurl/l3lvb2f
Posted on: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:51:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015